10/04/2014 BBC World News


10/04/2014

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 10/04/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

test both. I had shorts on without a shirt. Where Hello.

:00:00.:00:00.

This is BBC World News. Our top stories.

:00:00.:00:12.

Oscar Pistorius is being cross-examined by the prosecution,

:00:13.:00:17.

at the trial for the murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. The

:00:18.:00:23.

prosecution has been questioning him over his character.

:00:24.:00:29.

Brisk voting is reported in some states in the third day of polling

:00:30.:00:33.

in India. More than 100 million people can vote today in 14 states.

:00:34.:00:47.

The search for MH370 is improving significantly. There have been for

:00:48.:00:52.

acoustic signals heard earlier this week.

:00:53.:00:57.

Researchers in Britain say governments are wasting money

:00:58.:01:01.

stockpiling medicines against flu. We can now go back to Pretoria,

:01:02.:01:20.

where Oscar Pistorius is being questioned by the chief prosecutor.

:01:21.:01:26.

We saw him a moment ago, Jerry now. I do not remember even now where the

:01:27.:01:32.

place was where I met him. -- Gerrie Nel.

:01:33.:01:37.

So you are criticising her for not knowing, but you do not know.

:01:38.:01:43.

The question was put if Samantha Taylor knew him. I do not know if he

:01:44.:01:54.

-- we have been to his house. There was an occasion where you met

:01:55.:01:59.

him at the residential place? That is correct.

:02:00.:02:02.

But you cannot tell the court where it is, you have no idea.

:02:03.:02:08.

I do not know the area, I would have put it in my sat nav and driven

:02:09.:02:11.

there. If Sam was there, we cannot

:02:12.:02:16.

criticise her for not remembering, because she wasn't driving. Some of

:02:17.:02:28.

the Taylor. -- Samantha Taylor. Can we criticise her for not knowing?

:02:29.:02:36.

I do not believe if she was with me. You have to look at the context and

:02:37.:02:40.

if she comes up here and says she went to a place in the Vaal River.

:02:41.:02:51.

Whether she knew where it was or did not know is of no relevance if she

:02:52.:02:54.

wasn't there. The question is, let us say she was

:02:55.:03:00.

that that place was with you, you cannot criticise her for not knowing

:03:01.:03:04.

where it was, that is all I am asking you.

:03:05.:03:09.

If that is the case, no, I couldn't. How would she know, that you met him

:03:10.:03:19.

at a residential place to talk about guns? I have no idea. She said, you

:03:20.:03:27.

met somebody to sign gun papers. That is what she thought.

:03:28.:03:32.

I know Samantha Taylor was with me on another occasion when I signed

:03:33.:03:40.

papers pertaining to a fire arm. I know she was with me there. I

:03:41.:03:44.

discussed things, we were in a relationship, I told her where I was

:03:45.:03:49.

on many occasions. I do not know if... My lady.

:03:50.:03:58.

You do, because you are giving me the opportunity to ask. Are you

:03:59.:04:02.

saying that she is making it up? Yes, my lady. She is lying? She lied

:04:03.:04:08.

in her statement and when she was up here, my lady.

:04:09.:04:13.

About being with you at somebody's house that day?

:04:14.:04:16.

Or I am saying is I cannot remember anybody being with me. I remember

:04:17.:04:22.

meeting to sign papers in a residential area. I can't recall in

:04:23.:04:26.

which residential area it was, I think it was in October. This was

:04:27.:04:33.

two years, a year and a half ago. You see, that is significant. If

:04:34.:04:41.

there is an indication you were there on the 30th, you cannot deny

:04:42.:04:46.

that, the 30th of September, you cannot deny it because you can

:04:47.:04:49.

remember. That is correct. If shares -- if she says she went

:04:50.:04:56.

with you on that day to sign gun papers, she is just making that up?

:04:57.:05:01.

I do not know, but I do not remember Samantha Taylor accompanying me. If

:05:02.:05:09.

that is what she says, then I cannot say she is lying. What I can say is

:05:10.:05:12.

I do not remember anyone accompanying me.

:05:13.:05:18.

She is not the only one making it up, it must also be Mr Fresco making

:05:19.:05:23.

it up. I did not say she made it up, I said

:05:24.:05:27.

I do not remember that. So, the two of them, Mr Fresco and

:05:28.:05:33.

Samantha Taylor can remember at least going to a residential place

:05:34.:05:38.

with you to sign gun papers. I lady, if you look at the evidence

:05:39.:05:43.

of Samantha Taylor and Mr Fresco, that is what they both say. But they

:05:44.:05:50.

don't agree upon the charge, upon how it happened, where or why it

:05:51.:05:54.

happened. So if they say they were there with me on a day when this

:05:55.:06:00.

happens, I cannot definitely say they want with me. I can't say that

:06:01.:06:06.

I was there in September. If there is evidence that shows that, then I

:06:07.:06:10.

can say that if that is what that was, then I was there. But I cannot

:06:11.:06:15.

remember, it is not an event I remember, I don't remember signing

:06:16.:06:20.

the papers, or the house. That is all I can remember.

:06:21.:06:29.

But, you see, I would like to use this in an argument. You are arguing

:06:30.:06:37.

the case as if, as a council. Have you seen their statements? I have

:06:38.:06:44.

seen Samantha Taylor's statement, and Mr Fresco's statement. And you

:06:45.:06:49.

have heard them testify. They both said they went with you on that day

:06:50.:06:54.

to a residential place where you signed gun papers. That is correct.

:06:55.:06:59.

You can't remember. If two of them can, they must be correct. I do not

:07:00.:07:07.

remember, my lady. If that is what they said, but I cannot remember.

:07:08.:07:14.

Let us argue, if three people, two of them know they were there and one

:07:15.:07:19.

does not double picked the two. I do not want to argue. I am so glad to

:07:20.:07:27.

remember that answer. But I am putting to it Gracnar putting it to

:07:28.:07:32.

you, you are not willing to concede anything. -- I am putting it to you.

:07:33.:07:48.

Is that a question? Yes. No, my lady. I have conceded on several

:07:49.:07:52.

occasions. I cannot agree with the statement that is put to me if I do

:07:53.:07:56.

not have ever collection of that event.

:07:57.:07:59.

Both of them indicated that you fired through the sunroof. That is

:08:00.:08:06.

definitely a knife. That is a lie. Both of them independently would

:08:07.:08:10.

tell that like? They both took the stand, they both are different

:08:11.:08:13.

stories as to why it happened, where it happened, how it happened, as to

:08:14.:08:23.

the reaction. That story was fabricated, it has never happened.

:08:24.:08:26.

It is not the truth. It is a bad fabrication, because they never

:08:27.:08:29.

spoke to each other. They have different reasons why it happened,

:08:30.:08:34.

where it happened. It was a terrible fabrication between the two of them.

:08:35.:08:42.

They have been in contact. Although they said they have not spoken to

:08:43.:08:45.

each other, they have been in contact with each other, they have

:08:46.:08:50.

been seen at the same events. So, I do not know what the connection

:08:51.:08:54.

would be between some of the Taylor and Mr Fresco. For all I know, they

:08:55.:09:02.

have kept communication open. Now, again, we have two say, when

:09:03.:09:10.

they say they haven't had communication, Barry Roux, he never

:09:11.:09:21.

challenge them on that. My lady, I do not remember if Mr Roux challenge

:09:22.:09:25.

them on it. He did not, take it from me. He will chop off if -- jump up

:09:26.:09:33.

if I say something wrong. What I have heard is they have had

:09:34.:09:41.

communication with each other. You are the person who volunteered the

:09:42.:09:47.

fact that they said they didn't have communication, but they have. Let me

:09:48.:09:53.

rephrase. You are the one who said, in evidence, they said they did not

:09:54.:09:58.

have communication. That is correct. But you know that they did. I beg

:09:59.:10:06.

your pardon? But you know they had communication. I am not saying that,

:10:07.:10:10.

I said I heard. You have heard from people? That is

:10:11.:10:17.

correct. It was put to them that Mr Pistorius

:10:18.:10:23.

had heard you had communication, that wasn't important? Who told you?

:10:24.:10:33.

I do not recall, my lady. No. I apologise for the offing, I won't do

:10:34.:10:37.

it again, but I was surprised by the answer. I hope it doesn't happen

:10:38.:10:45.

again. I also want to say something to

:10:46.:10:50.

people out there. You possibly think this is entertainment. It is not.

:10:51.:10:57.

So, please restrain yourselves. Is that the gallery? The gallery, yes.

:10:58.:11:03.

Thank you. So, you tell me that somebody giving

:11:04.:11:12.

evidence, since then, they gave you that information but you cannot top

:11:13.:11:17.

court who it was? I do not recall. I speak to many people in the

:11:18.:11:24.

afternoon. I beg your pardon. Because it is not true, that is the

:11:25.:11:29.

only reason you cannot remember. Because it is not true. You would

:11:30.:11:32.

remember who gave you that information.

:11:33.:11:39.

My lady, was that a question? Yes, because it was untrue. That is

:11:40.:11:47.

incorrect. If somebody would say, I had my gun

:11:48.:11:52.

in that car between my legs, that person would be lying. If somebody

:11:53.:11:59.

would say, Mr Pistorius had his gun in the car between his legs, that

:12:00.:12:03.

person would be lying. That is correct, Mr Fresco did testify to

:12:04.:12:10.

that and it was not the truth. And nobody challenged him.

:12:11.:12:15.

I can't remember if anyone challenged it or not. I did not

:12:16.:12:22.

discuss, when I discussed this charge with my counsel, I did not

:12:23.:12:26.

discuss things that didn't happen, so I could not have said to them I

:12:27.:12:31.

can foresee what Mr Fresco will say on the stand. And tell them that he

:12:32.:12:35.

might say I had my gun between my legs, when that didn't happen. If

:12:36.:12:40.

they didn't challenge it, my faith is in them, my lady. I cannot say

:12:41.:12:44.

why they did or did not challenge it. Now, whilst we are busy with

:12:45.:12:51.

this, I see we have 15 minutes before lunch and I want to deal with

:12:52.:12:59.

something. At least, I don't want to get you

:13:00.:13:05.

confused so I'm going to recede. The early morning of the 4th of

:13:06.:13:10.

February, in the bathroom, you were firing shots. How many shots did you

:13:11.:13:16.

fire? I fired four shots, my lady. In what sequence, was it to double

:13:17.:13:25.

taps? No, in quick succession, my lady.

:13:26.:13:32.

You know that for a fact? That is correct, my lady. Because you can

:13:33.:13:38.

remember it. That is correct. It is not a reconstruction? No, my lady.

:13:39.:13:46.

And it was definitely not two double taps? That is correct, my lady. Why

:13:47.:13:58.

would Mr Roux think and put to the officer that you fired double taps?

:13:59.:14:05.

I am not quite sure. That is what he put, and in the first break I

:14:06.:14:09.

corrected him and I said to him it wasn't a double tap. But, before we

:14:10.:14:15.

go to you correcting him, why would he say that? I am not sure, my lady.

:14:16.:14:22.

It is impossible... Mr Roux will not say something, forget the

:14:23.:14:28.

correction, Mr Roux will not put something to witness that is not

:14:29.:14:31.

your version. Why would he say two double taps? The only destination I

:14:32.:14:36.

could think of is, when we spoke about training in firearm training,

:14:37.:14:44.

you learn to fired two shots which is in a double tap, it is called a

:14:45.:14:52.

double tap. And I think maybe Mr Roux, I cannot say why he did, but I

:14:53.:14:55.

corrected him. You said it is your version that you

:14:56.:15:07.

fired two double taps. It wasn't that, is it possible, he put it as a

:15:08.:15:14.

version. I understand that, my lady. Mr Nel, he has answered. All he mows

:15:15.:15:20.

is he corrected Mr Roux. May I ask a follow up question. The

:15:21.:15:28.

only reason is if you told him That is incorrect. My lady. I didn't say

:15:29.:15:33.

that. I didn't tell Mr Roux I fired a double tap at any point. But you

:15:34.:15:40.

know that it was in quick succession. Yes. How do you know

:15:41.:15:46.

that? Because that is what I remember. How do you know? I don't

:15:47.:15:53.

really understand how, how I am meant to explain how I am supposed

:15:54.:15:57.

to remember something. Stewed stew at that point, we have

:15:58.:16:00.

-- STUDIO: At that point we have lost

:16:01.:16:06.

the sound from Oscar Pistorius's trial in Pretoria, and you can see

:16:07.:16:14.

there, how the chief prosecutor keeps pressing Oscar Pistorius about

:16:15.:16:18.

the credibility of all that he has been saying, including how he uses

:16:19.:16:23.

his gun, where he keeps his gun, where he keeps ammunition, as well.

:16:24.:16:31.

And the kind of way in which he handles the weaponry that he has,

:16:32.:16:37.

which was essentially a pistol. That pressure is on from Mr Nel, and you

:16:38.:16:43.

can see there that it is relentless pressure. Trying to test Oscar

:16:44.:16:52.

Pistorius on what he said, and Oscar Pistorius remaining very measured in

:16:53.:16:56.

all his replies, and even challenging the chief prosecutor.

:16:57.:17:01.

Back to the coverage. At page 1475. Before I knew it I had

:17:02.:17:14.

fired four shots at the door. My ears were ringing. That's correct,

:17:15.:17:21.

my lady. So, again, is that a reconstruction? It is taking the

:17:22.:17:27.

facts into account. There are four shots fired. I don't remember

:17:28.:17:31.

specifically firing four shot, I remember them being fired in quick

:17:32.:17:35.

succession, I said I fire four shots. I did fire them, when

:17:36.:17:39.

describing the manner I fired them in quick succession. Do I remember

:17:40.:17:44.

firing four? No, I don't. At the door. Correct at the door, my lady.

:17:45.:17:50.

Do you remember firing at the door? Yes. Yesterday when we ended you

:17:51.:17:55.

said you don't. You can't remember. That is incorrect my lady. You did.

:17:56.:18:02.

That is incorrect. When put to me if I remember firing at the door I said

:18:03.:18:06.

yes, I remember firing at the door, I wasn't at the time I fired the

:18:07.:18:11.

pistol was pointed at the door. When I heard the noise I fired the --

:18:12.:18:17.

pistol. I refiring at the door. I never said I don't remember firing

:18:18.:18:23.

at the door. Let me just get it, and we luckily have the record. This is

:18:24.:18:30.

your evidence. I remember firing four shots at the door. That's

:18:31.:18:36.

correct my lady. Because you remember aiming at the door. I

:18:37.:18:43.

remember pulling the trirks and the rounds going into the door, my lady.

:18:44.:18:53.

Unfortunately -- I remember pulling the trigger and rounds going into

:18:54.:18:57.

the door. That's correct. How do you remember the rounds going into the

:18:58.:19:03.

door? I don't understand... Did you hear them go into the door, did you

:19:04.:19:06.

see them going through the door? That is where the firearm was

:19:07.:19:11.

pointed, my lady. That is my remembrance is I saw them going into

:19:12.:19:28.

the door. That is where I fired. So... Now we can go back to where we

:19:29.:19:36.

stopped yesterday. You fired, did you fire deliberately? No, my lady

:19:37.:19:44.

did not fire deliberately. You are still with accidentally? I am still

:19:45.:19:50.

with the fact that I fired the gun out of fear, that at a time I

:19:51.:19:57.

didn't, I interpreted it, I am not trying to argue, I am saying, I

:19:58.:20:01.

didn't mean to pull the trigger, so in that sense it was an accident. I

:20:02.:20:08.

just want us not to again get this confused.

:20:09.:20:14.

"I never meant to pull the trigger." That's correct. My lady.

:20:15.:20:26.

So, you never wanted to shoot at intruders coming out of the

:20:27.:20:32.

bathroom? I didn't have time to think about it my lady. Whether I

:20:33.:20:37.

didn't want... I wouldn't have wanted to shoot at someone. No,

:20:38.:20:42.

answer the question. You never deliberately pulled the trigger, so

:20:43.:20:49.

you never wanted to shoot at robbers, intruder, coming out of the

:20:50.:20:54.

toilet. That's correct my lady. So whatever happened in that bathroom,

:20:55.:21:00.

noises, what happened that whole night, never caused you to pull the

:21:01.:21:07.

trigger it went off accidentally? That is the opposite of what I am

:21:08.:21:13.

saying. No, it is not. What I said was that the noise coming from the

:21:14.:21:17.

bathroom made me pull the trigger from the toilet. So it is not what

:21:18.:21:23.

Mr Nel is putting to me my lady. But you can't remember pulling the

:21:24.:21:28.

trigger. Can you? I can remember pulling the trigger my lady. You

:21:29.:21:34.

didn't aim at it? The firearm was aimed at door. Did you want to shoot

:21:35.:21:38.

the people coming out the door or not? I didn't have time to think

:21:39.:21:42.

about whether I wanted to or not. I heard a noise and I discharged the

:21:43.:21:54.

firearm. So, you never wanted to shoot the intruders coming out the

:21:55.:22:01.

door. That's correct. But we know weren't intruders in there Reeva was

:22:02.:22:04.

in there. There was no reason for you to shoot. After the fact, as

:22:05.:22:08.

which stand here today, you had no reason to shoot. That's correct my

:22:09.:22:15.

lady. If you waited a second, to see if the door would open, you would

:22:16.:22:20.

not have fireded. It's a possibility my lady. She was in there, we know

:22:21.:22:27.

it know, she was in there. If you waited, you would not have fire

:22:28.:22:35.

fired. Am I right? I am not sure, if Reeva had come out or if she had

:22:36.:22:42.

spoken to me, or... Then I wouldn't have fired. Let us go. We know for a

:22:43.:22:49.

fact that there were no intruders in your house that night. That's

:22:50.:22:53.

correct my lady. We know for a fact there was no ladder against the

:22:54.:22:57.

wall. That's correct Mill. We know for fact it was Reeva in there.

:22:58.:23:03.

That's correct. We know for a fact... That's correct. We know you

:23:04.:23:09.

had no reason to shoot. Objectively. That's correct, my lady.

:23:10.:23:28.

Now, it is not your version you aimed at the door, because you

:23:29.:23:34.

thought the robbers were coming out, and you have to protect yourself. It

:23:35.:23:41.

is my version, that is what I said in my chief, I said I thought the

:23:42.:23:46.

robber were in the toilet, or they were on the ladder. My firearm was

:23:47.:23:52.

pointed at the toilet. My eyes were going between the window and the

:23:53.:23:59.

toilet door. But why did you fire? Because I heard a noise coming from

:24:00.:24:03.

inside the toilet, that I interpreted at that time split

:24:04.:24:07.

moment as somebody coming out to attack me my lady.

:24:08.:24:14.

Luckily, it is all on record. When you heard that, the, you just

:24:15.:24:22.

started shooting. That's... Or accidentally your finger pulled the

:24:23.:24:25.

trigger. I started shooting at that point. At the intruders. At the

:24:26.:24:31.

door. But in your mind the intruders. What I perceived was the

:24:32.:24:36.

intruder. So it wasn't accidentally. My Lord my lady I am getting

:24:37.:24:41.

confused with accidentally and not accidentally. I am told to say it is

:24:42.:24:45.

either an accident or not. I have said time and time again, what I

:24:46.:24:50.

perceived and what I thought. I don't understand if it is not, it

:24:51.:24:54.

was put to me yesterday it was by accident and now it is put it wasn't

:24:55.:24:58.

by accident. I don't understand, my lady. I am saying that I didn't

:24:59.:25:03.

intend to shoot, I was pointing my firearm was pointing at the door,

:25:04.:25:06.

that is where I believed somebody was. When I heard a noise, didn't

:25:07.:25:12.

have time to think and I fired my weapon. It was an accident.

:25:13.:25:23.

My lady would this be an opportune moment, it is five to one, if we

:25:24.:25:32.

take an adjournment for tea, lunch adjournment now? We will be back at

:25:33.:25:38.

2.00. Court will adjourn. STUDIO: So, there you have the court

:25:39.:25:47.

in Pretoria in South Africa, adjourning for a one hour lunch

:25:48.:25:53.

brain, with Oscar Pistorius, who has been on the stand for the last

:25:54.:25:59.

three-and-a-half hour, being put under relentless pressure by the

:26:00.:26:03.

chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel. He has been cross-examined by him over the

:26:04.:26:12.

death of his girlfriend Arriva. He painted a -- Reeva Steenkamp. He

:26:13.:26:15.

painted a picture of Oscar Pistorius adds a man who bullied his

:26:16.:26:20.

girlfriend. Text messages have been examined in detail as was an

:26:21.:26:25.

incident in a restaurant in which Mr Pistorius set off a fireroom a. The

:26:26.:26:29.

athlete claims he's did not kill her intentionally and Mr Pistorius said

:26:30.:26:32.

he had not been wear that the gun he was holding was loaded, but insisted

:26:33.:26:39.

he had not pulled the trigger. He was put under intense pressure by Mr

:26:40.:26:45.

Nel "You fired that gun, there is no other way that bullet could have

:26:46.:26:48.

been discharged without you pulling the trigger. You are lying. " Mr

:26:49.:26:59.

Pistorius "I respect that comment but I did not pull the trigger

:27:00.:27:00.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS